I think the biggest flaw with higher education today is that we're pushing people into doing undergraduate degrees who are already well beyond coming out of self learning from high school or other experiences.
There is no way this could be the “biggest flaw” in higher education today because the number of people possibly impacted is so tiny.
Although I think you’re striking at something that is a real problem with undergraduate degrees today: Many universities have become so watered down and softened that students spend the first 1-2 years doing what they should have been learning in high school.
My friends who still teach at university constantly complain about students arriving for undergrad with very poor writing, communication, and listening skills.
We have no idea how many other people would achieve something similar with a similar background. Personally I'd bet almost anything it's a larger number than most people expect.
I'd also be surprised if she doesn't already have a pretty solid background in undergrad-level math.
The irony is she's actually more typical than not. Universities in the past were open to giving unusual talents special treatment.
Historically, the idea that everyone must follow the same path on the same timetable is unusual.
We are livestock for corporations, that's why.
I know a few very special schools give undergrads access to brilliant minds in their field, but I also have been told that undergrads at those schools are mostly taught by grad students, so I'm not sure that Ivies provide a lot either, beyond the opportunity to hobnob with the legacies that will be running Goldman Sachs in 20 years.
Even at top universities, very very few freshmen are capable of doing high-quality research immediately. They'd be better served learning the foundations inside and out with a cohort of similarly strong students to challenge them.
Undergrads who do research generally aren't very good at research yet. A major reason is they either lack or don't fully understand the pre-reqs, which they progressively and cumulatively learn during undergrad. A student can be incredibly smart, but acquiring a strong rigorous math background will still take years.
Anyone can try doing research, even undergrads who half-know the foundations. However, trying research doesn't mean you have the background to do great research or to succeed in a postgrad program.
Plenty of people in postgrad programs don't know the foundations. It's ok. You are there to learn.
Completely unfair to expect someone already doing research to slog out 4yrs of classes not furthering their career.
I can see a committed and gifted student being able to get most of the pre-reqs for doctoral studies in America or Canada while in high school.
If you have bright enough undergrads, you change the curriculum for them within their field of expertise, so that they still get the breadth of things outside it while not wasting time with things they know. You let them not take as many classes, take graduate courses, do more research, take more courses from other departments in related areas but with different perspectives, and so on.
When I was an undergrad, in physics, there was a professor in the department who had done his undergrad there and was legendary, as was quietly mentioned in awe, for not taking any undergraduate physics courses while there; the department had let him skip all of them, and instead take graduate courses and do research.
My understanding is that US student loans accrue interest at rates above inflation. They do have repayment plans based on income, but because the interest rate is higher than wage growth, the debt just keeps growing if you're on these plans. They also don't have progressive thresholds like we do and the repayments tend to be higher.
Australia has a similar but less severe problem. Inflation and wage growth are closer together but they aren't the same. Still, the situation in the US seems worse.